Cromwell Recreation Center

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster1899-DR-NY
ApplicantNew York City Parks and Recreation
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#085-UYTDQ-00
PW ID#Unwritten Project Worksheet
Date Signed2013-11-20T00:00:00

Citation:  FEMA-1899-DR-NY, New York City Parks and Recreation, Cromwell Recreation Center, Unwritten Project Worksheet

Cross-Reference:  General Work Eligibility

Summary:  Between March 13 and March 31, 2010, a severe storm and flooding event impacted coastal structures.  The New York City Parks and Recreation (Applicant) requested funding for the repair of its Cromwell Recreation Center.  During a January 2009 site inspection, the Applicant’s resident engineer identified cracks and movement in the base slab. Stabilization work was budgeted and scheduled to begin on April 12, 2010. On May 7, 2010, the Applicant conducted a site construction inspection and observed sagging of the base slab along with more extensive cracking. On May 17, 2010, FEMA and Applicant representatives inspected the facility, observed severe structural cracking in the walls and the floor, and noted that the structural damage “is likely long-term, increasing with age.”  On May 26, 2010, 56 days after the close of the incident period, a portion of the remaining 100-feet of the facility not yet stabilized collapsed. FEMA prepared PW 1063 for $2,871,589 for debris removal and demolition activities only, stating that the permanent repairs are not eligible due to the “pre-existing conditions, the state of disrepair and lack of maintenance on the building.” FEMA obligated PW 1063 on October 29, 2010.  On May 5, 2011, the Applicant submitted a request for funding for permanent work for $125,400,000 and approval of an alternate project. The FEMA Regional Recovery Director denied both requests on December 12, 2011, stating that the partial collapse was due to structural inadequacies that existed prior to the disaster. The Grantee submitted a first appeal on April 2, 2012, on behalf of the Applicant.  On November 14, 2012, FEMA denied the Applicant’s first appeal concluding that the main cause of the partial collapse was not the declared event, but the pre-existing conditions and the structural instability of the facility. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 31, 2013, asserting that first FEMA must prepare a Category E PW for the repair of the facility and then the Applicant will “demonstrate why it disputes the position of the FEMA Project Specialist.”

Issue:   Is the restoration of the Cromwell Recreation Center required as the result of the event? 

Finding:  No. The documentation supports that the pre-existing condition of the building was the major cause of the partial collapse.

Rationale:  44 CFR §206.223 General work eligibility


 

Appeal Letter

November 20, 2013

Dr. Peter Marghella
Director
New York State Office of Emergency Management
1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22, Suite 101
Albany, New York 12226-2251

Re: Second Appeal – New York City Parks and Recreation, PA ID 085-UYTDQ-00, Cromwell Recreation Center, FEMA-1899-DR-NY, Unwritten Project Worksheet

Dear Dr. Marghella:

This is in response to a letter from your office dated March 1, 2013, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of New York City Parks and Recreation (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of funding for the restoration of the Cromwell Recreation Center.

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the restoration of the Cromwell Recreation Center is not eligible for funding.  Accordingly, I am denying the appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah Ingram
Assistant Administrator
Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc:  Jerome Hatfield
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region II

Appeal Analysis

Background

Between March 13 and March 31, 2010, storm surge and wave action accompanying a severe storm and flooding event impacted coastal structures in Tompkinsville, Staten Island.  Following the event, declared as a major disaster on April 13, 2010, the New York City Parks and Recreation (Applicant) requested Public Assistance funding for the repair of its Cromwell Recreation Center (facility) located on Pier 6 in Tompkinsville.

The facility is a two-story, steel-framed building on a concrete slab, originally supported by wooden piles. At the time of the event, the Applicant was in the process of completing the stabilization of the structure that it began in 2000.  The project, which stopped in 2002 due to funding issues, involved retrofitting the substructure with concrete caissons and steel beams.  The Applicant was able to complete the retrofit for all but the last 100 feet of the pier. In early 2008, the Applicant began the process to complete the final 100 feet of stabilization. During a January 2009 site inspection, the Applicant’s resident engineer identified cracks and movement in the base slab, including a large crack in the underside, and cracks in the upper floor ceiling of the base slab on the underside of the pier.  During subsequent visits through June 2009, the resident engineer did not notice further movement or cracks.

The Applicant awarded a contract to complete the stabilization project on February 3, 2010.  The stabilization work was budgeted and scheduled to begin on April 12, 2010.  The Applicant closed the facility on April 11, 2010, to allow for the start of the project.  On May 7, 2010, the Applicant conducted a site construction inspection and observed sagging of the base slab along with more extensive cracking than that observed in June 2009.

On May 17, 2010, FEMA and Applicant’s representatives inspected the facility.  The FEMA Project Specialist observed severe structural cracking in the interior and exterior walls and the floor and in a site visit report stated that the structural damage “is likely long-term, increasing with age.”  Without detailed information regarding the pre-disaster condition of the walls, the Project Specialist was unable to determine if the damage was caused by the event. 

On May 26, 2010, 56 days after the close of the incident period, a portion of the remaining 100-feet of the facility not yet stabilized collapsed.  At that time, the partially collapsed structure presented an immediate threat to public safety, and the Applicant proceeded to demolish the damaged portion of the building and remove the debris.  FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 1063 for $2,871,589 to fund debris removal and demolition activities only.  The scope of work of PW 1063 stated that the permanent repairs are not eligible due to the “pre-existing conditions, the state of disrepair and lack of maintenance on the building.”  FEMA obligated PW 1063 on October 29, 2010.

On May 5, 2011, the Applicant submitted a request for funding for permanent work for rebuilding the facility for $125,400,000.  In conjunction with its request for a permanent work PW for the reconstruction of the facility, the Applicant requested approval of an alternate project. The FEMA Regional Recovery Director denied both requests on December 12, 2011, stating that the partial collapse of the facility was due to structural inadequacies that existed prior to the disaster. Further, the Recovery Director stated that according to Title 44 of Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.226, the Applicant had 60 days from the date that FEMA obligated PW 1063 to appeal the determination regarding the eligibility of permanent repairs of the facility and did not submit a timely appeal.

First Appeal

The New York State Office of Emergency Management (Grantee) submitted a first appeal on April 2, 2012, on behalf of the Applicant for funding for the repair of the Cromwell Recreational Center.  The Grantee stated that FEMA neglected to prepare a permanent work project for the facility.  Further, the Grantee maintained that the collapse of the building was the direct result of the March 2010 storm.  On November 14, 2012, the FEMA Region II Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal concluding that the main cause of the partial collapse of the facility was not the declared event but the pre-existing conditions and the structural instability of the facility.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on January 31, 2013; however, the Applicant did not address the Regional Administrator’s determination regarding the cause of the collapse other than by stating that it “is prepared to show that the March 13, 2010, storm (FEMA-1899-DR-NY) was in fact the sole proximate cause of the (partial) collapse” of the facility.  The Applicant asserts that first FEMA must prepare a Category E PW for the repair of the facility and that the time limit for submitting an appeal will begin upon receipt of the PW, then the Applicant will “demonstrate why it disputes the position of the FEMA Project Specialist.”

Discussion

In accordance with 44 CFR 206.223(a), General work eligibility, in order to be eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance program, an item of work must be required as the result of the emergency or major disaster event. In both the December 12, 2011, letter and the response to the first appeal, FEMA Region II concluded that the work to restore the facility was not required as the result of the event.  FEMA came to this conclusion based on a review and analysis of the timing of the collapse, documentation from site inspections, and engineering reports.  Pre-existing structural damage to the facility was well documented.  While the documentation supports that damage to the facility worsened between June 2009 and May 2010, there is no documentation that specifically relates the additional damage to the declared event.  Further, the facility did not collapse until almost two months after the close of the incident period, after the Applicant began the continuation of the stabilization project. 

The Applicant did not provide documentation, information, or an argument to dispute FEMA’s position regarding the cause of the collapse. Instead, in its second appeal, the Applicant asserts that the central issue in the appeal is the Regional Administrator’s statement that the Applicant did not submit a timely appeal of the determination of eligibility of the permanent repair made in PW 1063.  However, the Regional Administrator did not deny the Applicant’s first appeal on this basis, but on the basis that the event was not the main cause of the collapse.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that the collapse of the facility was caused by the event.  All documentation supports the conclusion that the facility collapsed due to the pre-existing condition of the facility.  Because the collapse of the facility was not caused by the event, the restoration of the facility is not eligible for funding. 

Last updated